Naval and disembarking

[Neil Williamson]

Can a naval element make a tactical move, either group or individual, and then, in the same bound, the element it is carrying, disrmbark making its own tactical move?

My reading is yes but I would like to check especially as I will be using a navy for the first time soon.

Pg 28 states an element can be part of 1 tactical move.
However, I think in page 10 they are treated as separate elements. Each naval element can carry one land element.

So my reading is the naval elements can make their tactical move and then the land elements can make their tactical moves, within the same bound PIPs permitting.

[Fon Tok Nak]

If a land element is on a naval element and the naval element moves, the land element is part of that move (it does not get left behind).

Without its land element embarked, a naval element cannot move, so although the rules do not say, the men from the land element are clearly needed/responsible for moving the naval element.

Consequently, the only way to move a naval element and then its land element in the same bound is by marching, i.e. the point of disembarkation must be further than 400 paces from all known enemy.

Anthony

[Neil Williamson]

Thanks Anthony
The answer seems to solely depend upon the interpretation of "An element can be part of 1 tactical move..." on page 28.

The elements are separate (as per page 10) and the land troops are merely carried along and not part of the naval move
OR
They are integral, as you have logically argued, and the land element is part of the naval move.

I'm still firmly on the fence with this one, and frequently change my mind on the interpretation.

[Neil Williamson]

And then...
If they are separate elements, does the general on board the ship give bonuses to the ship?
Does it add +1 combat factor to being shot at and close combat?
If the general's ship is in close combat, is there a command difficulty for PIPs.

[Neil Williamson]

I've still mulling this one over. I've posted it to the New Zealand Facebook group and copied it here.

Naval Gazing

A few curly rules questions.
Page 10 "... each naval element always carries and can disembark one land element..."
This seems to suggest that the two elements are separate. However, you can argue that because the naval element cannot move if there is no land unit aboard, then they are treated as a combined unit.

Questions
1. Does a general on a naval element add a +1 combat factor if the naval element is in combat or being shot at?
2. Does a general on a naval element that is in frontal combat suffer command difficulty?
3. If regular naval elements carry irregular troops do they still benefit from -1 PIP for one move or halt?
4. Can a naval element make a tactical move to shore, and then the land element make a tactical move in the same bound to disembark?
5. Can a land element embark and then, in the same bound, the naval element make a tactical move ?

If they are separate elements then I think the answers are
No, no, yes , yes, yes.

If they are a combined unit then I think the answers are the opposite
Yes, yes, no, no, no.

Or I suppose we could pick individual situations that suit us at the time lol.

Any thoughts if wisdom?

[Fon Tok Nak]

As I have two armies with significant numbers of naval elements, I have had similar ponderings.

In relation to generals, I think the question is one of command difficulty (p.27). If a general is on a naval vessel, is he 'on the battlefield'? I would say that he is. Even though his element is not on the table, his troops know where he is and can see his vessel. (Indeed, I have to have something that clearly identifies my general's vessel so that I know which one he is on!) For sure, the men on his vessel will know that he is with them.

Following from that, answering 'yes' to both questions 1 and 2 seems reasonable, especially 2.

I am not entirely sure that I understand question 3. Whether a naval element is regular or irregular is determined by the vessel's type, not how it's crew moves on land. A naval and its embarked element do not a group make, so I suspect this is a non-issue. (As an aside, some crews might be particularly adept at sailing but then poor at soldiering to the point that they only become available at all when the naval has already been taken, typically marines.)

The example of marines, while not proof, reinforces why the answers to questions 4 and 5 are 'no'. I don't know of a list that allows marines to be taken without the naval they crew. In some lists, the only troops that can go on the naval are marines - they must go together.

Finally, consider the parallel of mounted infantry and their mounts: would anybody allow mounted infantry to move on their mounts and then dismount and move again and not call that marching? Or anything mounted - for example, Kn move and dismount as BdS, then the BdS move. Was the BdS element part of the Kn move?

Anthony

[Neil Williamson]

Thanks Anthony
That's a very pragmatic and logical approach to the situation where the rules are not clear.

It is also the position I'd always assumed before starting to overthink things.

It would be useful if the rules committee would endorse this.

Thank you again
Neil